Advertisement

The Modern Strategies in the Cyber Warfare

  • Martti Lehto
Chapter
Part of the Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering book series (ISCA, volume 93)

Abstract

As there is no generally accepted definition for cyber warfare, it is a term that is quite liberally used in describing events and actions in the digital cyber world. The concept of cyber warfare became extremely popular from 2008 to 2010, partly superseding the previously used concept of information warfare which was launched in the 1990s. For some, cyber warfare is war that is conducted in the virtual domain. For others, it is a counterpart to conventional “kinetic” warfare. According to the OECD’s 2001 report, cyberwar military doctrines resemble those of so-called conventional war: retaliation and deterrence. Researchers agree with the notion that the definition of cyberwar should address the aims and motives of war, rather than the forms of cyber operations. They believe that war is always widespread and encompasses all forms of warfare. Hence, cyber warfare is but one form of waging war, used alongside kinetic attacks. The new capacities of armed forces create new possibilities, for both the kinetic and non-kinetic use of force in cyberspace. Cyber era capabilities make possible operations in the new nonlinear and indefinite hybrid cyber battlespace. It must be possible to seamlessly integrate the decision-makers, actors and all types of manned and unmanned platforms in the air, on the surface, under the surface, in space, and in cyberspace. The main trends that are changing the cyber battlespace are networking, time shortening, the increase in the amount of data, and proliferation of autonomous and robotic systems, as well as artificial intelligence and cognitive computing.

Keywords

Cyber warfare Non-kinetic Battle management 

References

  1. Alford LD (2009) Cyber warfare: the threat to weapon systems. WSTIAC Q 9(4)Google Scholar
  2. Arar S (2017) IBM Watson joins the war on cybercrime. All About Circuits, 13 Jan 2017Google Scholar
  3. Arwood S, Mills R, Raines R (2010) Operational art and strategy in cyberspace. In: International conference on information warfare and security, 16-XII. Academic Conferences International Limited, Apr 2010Google Scholar
  4. ASCAC (2013) Synergistic challenges in data-intensive science and exascale computing, DOE ASCAC data subcommittee report, MarchGoogle Scholar
  5. Bazin AA (2005) Boyd’s O-O-D-A loop and the infantry company commander. Infantry January Febr 94(1)Google Scholar
  6. Bonner EL (2012) Cyberpower learning from the rich historical experience of war. In: International conference on information warfare and security, pp 351–IXGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonner EL (2014) Cyber power in 21st-century joint warfare. JFQ 74(3):102–109Google Scholar
  8. Boyd JR (1986) Patterns of conflictGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyd JR (1987a) The strategic game of? And?Google Scholar
  10. Boyd JR (1987b) A discourse on winning and losingGoogle Scholar
  11. Boyd JR (1995) The essence of winning and losingGoogle Scholar
  12. Cahanin SE (2012) Principles of war for cyberspace. Air War College Maxwell Paper No. 61 Maxwell Air Force BaseGoogle Scholar
  13. Edwards P (1996) The closed world, computers and politics of discourse in cold war America. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Freedberg SJ (2016a) Robots, techies, and troops: carter and roper on 3rd offset. In: Breaking defence, 13 June 2016Google Scholar
  15. Freedberg SJ (2016b) Artificial intelligence for air force: cyber and electronic warfare. In: Breaking defence, 20 Sep 2016Google Scholar
  16. Hurley MM (2012) For and from cyberspace: conceptualizing cyber intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. USAF Air Space Power J 26.6 (Nov/Dec 2012):12–33Google Scholar
  17. IDC (2014) The digital universe of opportunities: rich data and the increasing value of the internet of things. White paper April 2014Google Scholar
  18. Kagan FW (2006) Finding the target, the transformation of American military policy. Encounter Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Kelly JE (2015) Computing, cognition and the future of knowing. IBM CorporationGoogle Scholar
  20. Kenny R (2015) Four ways artificial intelligence will change our lives. Signal SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuehl D (2009) From cyberspace to cyberpower: defining the problem. In: Kramer F, Starr S, Wentz L (eds) Cyberpower and national security. National Defense University Press and Potomac Books, Washington, DC, pp 24–42Google Scholar
  22. Lee RM (2013) The interim years of cyberspace. Air Space Power J 27.1 Jan/Feb 2013:58–79Google Scholar
  23. Libicki MC (2007) Conquest in cyberspace—national security and information warfare. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Mason S (2003) John Boyd and strategic Naval air power. In: United States naval institute proceedings, vol 129, no 7, AnnapolisGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller CB (1997) USAF TACS battle management: preparing for high tempo future operations, USAFGoogle Scholar
  26. Nye JS (2011) Nuclear lessons for cyber security? Strat Stud Q Winter:18–39Google Scholar
  27. Osinga FPB (2007) Science, strategy and war, the strategic theory of John Boyd, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Shanahan JNT (2001) Shock-based operations, New wine in an old jar. Air Space Power JGoogle Scholar
  29. Scherrer JH, Grund WC (2009) A cyberspace command and control model. Air War College, Maxwell Paper No. 47, Air University Press, Maxwell Air Force Base, AlabamaGoogle Scholar
  30. Sorensen CL (2010) Cyber OODA: towards a conceptual cyberspace framework. Doctoral Thesis, School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, AlabamaGoogle Scholar
  31. Warden JA (1995) The Enemy as a system. Airpower JGoogle Scholar
  32. Warden JA (1998) The air campaign: planning for combat, to excel reprintGoogle Scholar
  33. Warden JA (2000) Strategic thinking and planning. Venturist Publishing, Montgomery, AlabamaGoogle Scholar
  34. Warden JA (2011) Interview by Martti Lehto, Montgomery, Alabama, 23 Feb 2011Google Scholar
  35. Weisbrook RE (2007) Captain, USN, adapt or die, the US military’s responsibility to protect America by leading the transformations in science and technology. Strat Stud Q I(2)Google Scholar
  36. West SD (1999) Warden and the air corps tactical School-Déjà Vu? Thesis presented to the Faculty of The School of Advanced Air and Space Studies. Air University Press, Maxwell AFB, AlabamaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Information TechnologyUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations